P4Q2

 The book covers a wide range of important topics, including how a certain language or dialect influences our thinking. Another topic is whether each language contains a blame game in which one verb or adjective blames another. The third principle, which I believe is the most important, is that each person perceives each language instruction differently. In each crucial topic, there are ideas and background material from my extensive field of research. The universalism theory, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the Boas-Jacksons principle are examples of ideas and thinkers backed up by evidence and logic. All of those beliefs and theories that have arisen with the awareness that it isn't just made up since multiple people from diverse civilizations have believed and understood the same thing.

Does the way we interact and talk have an impact on how we think? This was one of the work's most important questions or topics. They think that certain occurrences can change how we perceive what others say and why they say it. "For Spanish speakers ready to spend an hour selecting shades of blue." "For Russian speakers willing to spend an hour sorting shades of blue." and "little youngsters shook their heads at what they regarded as her pitiful sense..." These examples show how people at different phases of their lives, in different regions of the country, or who speak a different language might have different understandings of the same things. I might be acting in a terrible or good way, or in little ones, without even realizing it. Also a portion of someone's stance or ideal image of a certain thing, or a specific concept of how we should respond in real life. To answer the question, yes, some languages may influence how you think and act. Linguistic relativity, reflectionism, and determinism are among theories that explain why this occurs. Linguistic relativity is a blanket term encompassing a number of hypotheses or points of view on the relationship between language and culture. According to linguistic reflectionism, language simply reflects the needs, attitudes, and views of its users. Linguistic Determinism asserts that one's language has an impact on how one thinks about categories.

The understanding of how we interpret things is backed up by a couple theories, one is because of the language and thought of the 1950s, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is mentioned in the opening paragraph. The notion supported the idea that the language's words and syntax are immediately transmitted to the speaker's thoughts. There are several examples of this in the text, such as ""She smashed the cup."'" and "'The cup broke itself.'" These examples demonstrate how the way something was and is stated may influence how we think and process information. Another theory that supports what I said in the second paragraph is universalism, which is described as the notion that a particular value, behavior, theory, or treatment will be the same regardless of culture, color, ethnicity, gender, or other social identities. This explains why we could understand it differently than others. The line "for Russian speakers ready to spend an hour categorizing hues of blue" is an example of this, as is the example given in paragraph two.

Does each language have a blame game on itself or another verb, was the second point raised in the book. Because it is mentioned so frequently in the text, I bring it up. This subject is discussed extensively in the text. recognizing that it is one of the most crucial issues that has been raised."Does the fact that one language tends to play the blame game...", "Unlike English, Indonesian verbs never change to express time" are some examples of why I put this in the most important topics from the text. These examples show how much the blame game could be used and how much it was discussed in the text.

In reality, there is a hypothesis that supports what I said in the fourth paragraph. The Boas-Jackson principle works as a jail, limiting the speaker's ability to reason and comprehend. And the reason that this works in the blame game in the language or very is that it can be difficult to understand and grasp the concept that is difficult to understand in other languages, but it may make sense in another language because that is the way it is combined the way that sounded correctly, because there isn't a challenge with using that verb or adjective in that context in another language. “Make is always just ‘make’. Although Indonesian speakers can add words like already or soon, this is optional. It doesn’t feel incomplete or ungrammatical to just say, ‘I make  dinner’. ”  Although this is a lengthy example, it demonstrates how things are spoken or organized differently in other languages, allowing you to select which verb or adjective to use in that statement. demonstrating that the book brings up this key topic. 

The last issue concerns how things are structured across a language. "She broke the cup." and "The cup broke itself." are two instances of how the statement may be phrased in a variety of ways. In understanding and interpreting information, both speech groups and linguistic prestige play a role. The last issue concerns how things are structured across a language. "She broke the cup." and "The cup broke itself." are two instances of how the statement may be phrased in a variety of ways. In understanding and interpreting information, both speech groups and linguistic prestige play a role. The Boas-Jackson principle is also relevant here.